You seem to be suffering from the delusion that that festering pile you posted would need to be defended against.
Well then, by the same logic, the vast majority of scholars find Kerry’s economic policies to be ridiculous.
And support for the proposition that “Stoid is acting like the usual complete moron in posting mindless knee-jerk fat-headedness” is practically unanimous.
Regards,
Shodan
I think it goes for both sides. Partisans from both the liberal and conservative sides attack each other with mindless drivel.
What unanimous?
I disagree with the scholars/historians that the impeachment was unconstitutional. I disagree with Pres. Clinton’s agreement with that claim. I disagree with Stoid’s implied agreement with that claim.
I agree that scholars/historians belief that the impeachment was unconstitutional is meaningless and proves nothing. I agree that it would take the Supreme Court to determine this officially.
Stoid’s statement, however, was accurately phrased. To claim that it is bullshit is, well, bullshit.
While I’m concerned about jumping into the crap flinging party that is this thread, I will point out that it would be nigh but impossible for Stoid to be able to cite to a federal or SCOTUS decision that the impeachment proceedings were “illegal” or “unconstitutional”. Because the power of impeachment resides solely with Congress, there is no review by the courts. I think this article by the eminent Lawrence Tribe does a very good job of explaining the issues regarding the “constitutionality” of the impeachment.
I’ll now let you go back to your shit fest, already in progress…
Even browsing that article (which I’ll read in detail later) has dispelled some ignorance on my part. I had no idea that impeachment/trial were completely non-reviewable. Score one for you, Hamlet, and thanks.
Thank you for taking the time to point that out, TYM. 
No. It really is bullshit. Provably and demonstrably.
I’ll remind you that you claimed to be quoting Clinton saying that the vast majority of Constitututional scholars claim that the impeachment was illegal and unconstitutional and that Newt Gingrich admits it was all political.
You haven’t shown where Clinton said that. I doubt he did. He’s not that stupid.
You haven’t shown where Newt Gingrich said what you said he did. I doubt he did did.
What you have offered is a cite showing that a select group of historians (from such unpatisan temples of learning as Berkely, and Stanford and such) think that the impeachment is a bad idea and counter to what the founding fathers intended.
I will note that these are not “Constitutional Scholars,” they are a sample, not a “vast majority,” they are not claiming that the impeachment is either illegal or unconstitutional. They are not that stupid.
As any fool knows, the grounds for impeachment are by law whatever the Congress determines to meet the criteria under the blanket high crimes or misdemeanors.
If they wish to impeach for jawalking, that is both legal and constitutional.
OK, Stoid, it’s been 24 hours, and you have posted in this thread in the meantime, so are you going to back up your claim that I relentessly lie on this message board? Or provide an example of where I have lied even once? Let’s have it.
If not, your stance of “I’m going to call you a liar, but I’m not going to respond to your posts anymore” has to qualify as the lamest posting behavior in SDMB history. Accusing a fellow poster of lying, and then running away to hide??? WTF?
The issue of whether all Constitutional scholars or just some of them think the impeachment of Clinton was a bad idea is incredibly dull, boring and beside the point. The central fact is that the whole thing was about a BLOWJOB! Pubbies in both houses of Congress and our mighty mavens of the press spent weeks waving their arms in the air, crying, “Blowjob! Blowjob! Clinton got a blowjob! The Republic will fall!” running around like the troop of Red Queens from Alice in Wonderland.
(This is when a lot of us figured out that there was no liberal media. Liberal media would have given this story the laughingstock treatment it deserved.)
It was disgusting and funny at the same time, and also alarming since it was so clearly an attempt to accomplish in Congress what the Pubbies had been unable to accomplish at the ballot box.
It is to the everlasting shame of the Pubbies that they participated in this, and to the media for being their pathetic tools. I’m glad Clinton ripped Jennings a new one. He deserved it.
Carry on with your microanlaysis of Stoid’s post.
The real ragedy of Bill Clinton was that he needlessly alienated potential supporters! He could have done SO much! In my opinion, America was a country in need of massive reform…we have a huge, inefficient beaurocracy, and a non-responsive government. We are faced with so many challenges: the end of the bipolar world, the end of cheap oil, the end of nationalism and the rise of religious fanaticism. What did Bill do? He ALIENATED everybody! I see the 1994 meltdown as a tremendous REPUDIATION of Clinton and every idea he proposed!
Take healthcare: he (Clinton) had the reputation as a concilator. Therefore, he was in an excellent position to propose fundamental reforms. What did he do? He allowed hs power-mad wife to set up her own healthcare plan, and hold secret meetings , closed to public scrutiny! He should have known better!
And the countless betrayals of the public trust…take the 300+ FBI files that they somehow borrowd from the FBI…what was that all about? Instead of an explanation, HRC saya that Craig Livingston did it all by hisself.
As others have said, never was the opportubities greater…but Bill Clinton failed the test miserably, and we are all worse off because of it.
When do you think the first scholorley assessment of the Clinton regime will come out?
I’ll try to have it done by Friday, but no promises.
I looked at the articles of impeachment and, oddly enough, there was no mention of a blowjob. In reality, they were for perjury and obstructing justice. Now, people can, and have, spent thousands of hours and millions of words to discuss whether or not those felonies should be considered “high crimes or misdemeanors” but to say Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob is factually incorrect and an out and out lie. Had Clinton told the truth to the grand jury, there never would have been an impeachment. Public embarrassment, jokes on late night television, and character assisination sure, but he got those anyway. The simple fact of the matter, no matter how you want to dress it up, is that Clinton lied under oath. Personally, I don’t believe that that was grounds for impeachment, but don’t go lying about it to make Clinton seem like some kind of martyr.
No more so than saying that Al Capone was sent to Alcatraz for racketeering, not tax evasion. The blowjob was the incident that Starr used to manufacture the perjury trap in collusion with the Scaife operation (perjury never was actually even charged in court, much less the cause of indictment or conviction, as you’ll certainly recall in your probity, so be careful about your use of the word, okay?).
That is either disingenous or astoundingly naive on your part. You do recall the scale of the “Get Clinton For Something” operation that occupied the GOP’s attention throughout his tenure. There is little way to avoid the thought that the decision to find something to impeach him for had been made years before, and the Starr porn novel was simply the trigger to set off a gun that was already loaded. As it was, the impeachment was done strictly on a party-line basis, in a lame-duck session (after several of the reps voting for it had already been fired by the electorate for saying they’d do it), with no functioning Speaker, on a vote that was rushed to beat the swearing-in date of their replacements, with no real consideration of the facts presented or any real opportunity given to the President for rebuttal. It is sheer fantasy to suppose that the process will be seen as a legitimate or responsible use of power by future historians any more than it was by the majority of Americans at the time. The episode was one of the great embarrassments of our history, yes, but not for the reasons you’d like to suppose.
And yet, when one asks those (like you) who make that claim what the lie was, they have trouble explaining it. Do you really think that children asking what the fuss was about would be satisfied with knowing he answered a question evasively but they won’t ask what the question was or why it was being asked? That’s the problem faced by those who hold Clinton responsible for his being hounded.
Which would also be a lie.
“Manufacture the perjury trap”? Bill Clinton is a big boy and very intelligent. He made a conscious choice to lie to the grand jury.
I agree that the impeachment was politically motivated. I’ll even agree that the impeachment was ill-advised and I never would have supported it were I in Congress. None of which changes the fact that Clinton lied under oath.
You didn’t listen when it was all explained, in detail, with cites, three three years agowhy would you listen now? Nobody had a problem explaining it to you in that thread. You just didn’t listen.
I hold Clinton responsible for what he did… lie under oath. I just don’t make up excuses for his doing it, as you do.
Don’t lie, Hamlet. The impeachment was about the blowjob, it was ALWAYS about the blowjob, the bit about lying was just a cheap bit of cover for your nasty interest in the blowjob. You’re like the Soviet Union censors who censored Solzhenitsyn’s novels on the grounds that they were pornographic – you’re not fooling ANYBODY with your sad lies about the blowjob, so don’t lie about it. It was all about the blowjob and everybody knows it.
It is nevertheless the real reason.
I already pointed out that you can’t consider the answer without considering the question and the reasons it was being asked. Take the blinkers off.
But you do make up excuses for the political vendetta, integrated with the legal hounding, that created the situation. That’s far worse, and far less responsible as a citizen. Clinton was not a “martyr”, as you suggest, but neither is he the Antichrist, as you also seem to feel. He was the person chosen, twice, by a plurality of the electorate to run the government, and certain elements of society simply could never accept that fact in an adult manner. Some, like you, still can’t.
Don’t ever tell me what I do or not believe unless you can back it up with cites. Why is it that whenever somebody, even somebody who voted for Clinton and thinks he was hounded, ever points out the fact that he lied under oath is automatically insulted and denigrated? You know, with idiots like you and Evil Captor, I’m begining to see why more and more why the Democrats are losing the moderates because of this kind of shit.
Count me as one who believes the entire Clinton fiasco was politically motivated, that the hounders had vicious and horrible motives, that a blowjob is certainly nothing to get bent out of shape about (unless one is Clinton’s wife), and that a normally superb and consumate politician did one of the stupidest things in his life by lying under oath. That was the opening that the rabid and venomous hyenas had been praying for all along. If he’d simply stood up and taken his lumps (as he had to eventually anyway), the impeachment would never have happened.
Yawn …
Already explained. Because of your utter refusal, or is it inability, to consider the context. You cannot understand how Clinton answered the question without understanding who was asking it and why it was being asked. Is that really so difficult?
When come back, bring argument.